Yes, the ole' false analogy.
I have read that book, twice. It is a very well-written, heavily footnoted book, with very few challengeable discrepancies (so far, I have only found two questionable footnotes, out of hundreds.) It contains a remarkable array of historical and biblical information that challenges demolishes the status quo. This is THE BOOK dispensationalists do NOT want you to read.
Lol ... Why would you assume I would not want someone to read this book? He lays out his case very well ... as you have said. Everyone SHOULD read the book.
Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
Then get Hitchcock's thesis
www.pre-trib.org
read that and then decide for yourself whether Gundry's arguments hold water. Then read the Wayne House article ... then you are in a much better position to decide for yourself. I encourage everyone to read both.
all so-called "historians" rely on a single paragraph by a second-century historian named Irenaeus for their so-called "proof."
And there is where you expose your willful neglect. You have clearly not engaged Hitchcock's work. If you would have read his work, Chapter 2 of his thesis deals with the two earliest sources for the date of Revelation (Iraneus is actually the later of the two). Then you continue into chapter 3, you would find that he lists 20 more early citations that have evidence for the late date of Revelation.
This whole idea that the quote by Iraneus is somehow 'confusing' is a fabrication out of necessity. For almost 2000 years no reference who cites Iraneus was confused about what he meant ... it is only when the "early daters" required confusion on Iraneus' statement that his statement became confused.
In other words, the so-called "historians" misinterpreted Irenaeus' words; and this post by Dartuser is much-ago about nothing ...
It's not about nothing ... it strikes to the heart of your theology. You absolutely require the date of Revelation to be before 70 AD. And so you must reinterpret any data that contradicts that requirement ... or your entire system crumbles to nothing.
You don't seem to realize that with all the intricacies and ramifications that have resulted from even mild preterism, your theological system, while not purposely built on it, nonetheless, is currently teetering on ... the date of a book.
an attempt to smear the good name of a Reformed Presbyterian pastor and educator named Dr. Ken Gentry.
I have not smeared him. I have openly acknowledged that he indeed wrote a book that lays out his case well. He is probably an admirable man of God whom I will enjoy spending eternity with. But to equate my disagreement as to his eschatology ... and the presentation of a conflicting view with defaming his character ...
Yes I believe Hitchcock mentions Hegesippus as the earlier source to Ireneaus. I read his paper a few months ago.
My apologies. I misunderstood your post.
>>>Yes, the ole' false analogy.<<<
No false analogy was presented: only fact, which is: consensus is not fact.
>>>Why would you assume I would not want someone to read this book? He lays out his case very well ... as you have said. Everyone SHOULD read the book.<<<
I am really happy to read that. I agree 100%. The paperback is available on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Jerusalem-Fell-Dating-Revelation/dp/0982620608
>>>Then get Hitchcock's thesis<<<
My first exposure to his dispensational leanings was a Youtube debate against some poorly qualified opponent. He used the same tired argument you used: that a vast majority of Biblical scholars support the late date for the Revelation, which means it is nothing more than a tradition. He also tried to contort Matthew 23:39 to assist in his argument. I was unimpressed. However, I would recommend the Youtube debate at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6FOx_4wujg
>>>This whole idea that the quote by Iraneus is somehow 'confusing' is a fabrication out of necessity. For almost 2000 years no reference who cites Iraneus was confused about what he meant ... it is only when the "early daters" required confusion on Iraneus' statement that his statement became confused.<<<
I did my own research and this is what Irenaeus wrote that many historians use as proof:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3]
Many historians assume Irenaeus was stating the apocalyptic vision was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign. That is not the only possibility, but I would agree it is the most reasonable assumption from the wording.
It is worth noting that Nero's full name was Lucius Domitius Nero. Nero died in 68 AD, two years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. If John wrote the Revelation during the latter part of Nero's reign, he would be in his 60's, vs 95-100 if written during Domitian's reign.
The key time factors are "almost in our day" and "toward the end of Domitian's reign." That would mean that John saw the vision, wrote it in a book, had copies made, and sent them to the seven churches in Asia, all when he was approaching 100 years old. After his "release" he would "prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings" (Rev 10:11.) That would be difficult today for a man approaching 100, even with modern transportation.
Recall that John was supposedly in exile when all this transpired. It could have taken years to finish the work and actually send the books. It is also worth noting that John never mentioned that he was in exile, but was there "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:9.)
Now, the puzzler: two paragraphs before Irenaeus wrote the above statement, he wrote the following. Please read very carefully:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six… [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1]
Did you get that? Two paragraphs prior to claiming the vision was almost in his day, Irenaeus was referring to approved and ancient copies of the book. The vision was almost in his day, but the copies of the book written about the vision were ancient? That is not the way people normally think, or write.
Therefore, we must assume that the historians have either misinterpreted his statement, or Irenaeus misstated one or more of the paragraphs. Whatever the case, it is not reliable proof, and should be discarded.
Philip